And-Rew

and hear comes another reason - you're not gonna like it - but it's a fact...

just over a year ago, we were given a talk by one of the UK MOD photographers, with a demonstration of his kit, and what he actually does etc.

Any way, his kit was all Nikon - why? some one asked."Simple" came the answer - "we done a side by side test in Afghanistan and found the Nikon's to be more robust, and more capable of withstanding the wide range of conditions in weather, temperature and humidity that Afghanistan offers""What about the white lenses? Aren't they supposed to overcome that?""It overcomes Nikon's marketing quite nicely "

And so, on that basis, all of the UK MOD's togs are equipped with a kit that would require its own 'white van' to transport around.

As i said, you may not like it - but if the UK Military have done side by side tests and found the Canon stuff wanting in a host of situations, then why wouldn't NASA.

Space is like a war scenario - it's hardly appropriate to expect a courier to pop over/ up and pick up your kit to get repaired and returned... Once Virgin Galactic is up and running, that might be possible...

Hassy has a bigger camera body ( more easy to manipulate the settings in a space suit)

Nikon sensors have better DR than Canon.... and in space this performance is crucial.

Yes it must be the DR. NASA has been awaiting that for years up until last year when Nikon introduced the D800...

Do you believe yourself what you're writing?

You.... again

Well, factually speaking, DR is NOT the most important thing in space. NASA bought into Nikon a few years back because at the time Nikon was the king of HIGH ISO. You don't shoot the dark side of the Earth from space at ISO 100...you shoot it at ISO 6400, 12800 and at high shutter speeds to freeze the motion of 17,500mph! At High ISO, DR is physically limited. You lose about 1 stop DR per stop of ISO increase...you have only 7 or 8 stops at those high ISO, so the most important thing is the total electrons per pixel at maximum saturation. The higher the charge, the lower the noise.

Today, Canon rules the high ISO/SNR realm. By a relatively small margin compared to how much Nikon rules the low ISO/DR realm, but enough to give them an edge now. I believe the only reason NASA currently uses Nikon and has not changed to Canon is there really isn't any reason to. They are invested. They have the gear, have the lenses. Why change? They don't need the compelling features of the 1D X...it was built for sports, so it has an AF system and frame rate to match. I'd figure the most compelling Canon camera for NASA would be a 40-50mp FF monster with good ISO 25600 performance...which doesn't exist quite yet.

hmm what do you mean in all this text?

If you brush up on your English, you might understand it. Everything you need to know, my entire meaning, is in the text above.

well you are wrong about high iso, if you shall have the same results from 1dx and D4 and brightness in the images you have to expose the Canon more/richer/longer than Nikon, so overall there is no difference in high iso between the two cameras if you look at the raw file regarding signal /noise. About DR and low iso, base iso the 1dx has no chance against D4 due the signal/noise, go out and try d4 and 1dx side by side at high iso and you know/ se what Im is talking about "real life shooting as some people called it"

Everything here is taken with a lowly 7D with its utterly crappy sensor and excessively inferior technology. Put a 1D X in my hands, and I'll do and order of magnitude better. But, of course, my work can't possibly be better than anyone's work shot with a Nikon camera...oh, no! Not a chance!

Oh, and regarding "real life"...show me some real-world D4 photos that exhibit better high ISO performance than the 1D X. ISO 25600 and 51200 are both digital boosts on the D4...that results in more read noise intruding into the image, and it is usually quite apparent. I've seen near-noiseless photos taken with a 1D X at ISO 51200...stuff that compares to my 7D at ISO 800!!! I've never seen anything even remotely resembling that from a D4, D800, or any other Nikon camera.

well you are wrong about high iso, if you shall have the same results from 1dx and D4 and brightness in the images you have to expose the Canon more/richer/longer than Nikon, so overall there is no difference in high iso between the two cameras if you look at the raw file regarding signal /noise. About DR and low iso, base iso the 1dx has no chance against D4 due the signal/noise, go out and try d4 and 1dx side by side at high iso and you know/ se what Im is talking about "real life shooting as some people called it"

since you only seem to like stuff originally writen in Swedish you might like to look at this

"If we score the cameras would 1D X to get a little higher total than the D4. It can be anything that a D4 may, but is a bit faster, the autofocus is a little rapper and you get a little more detailed images. The difference is not great, but pretty easy to see and feel when running the cameras side by side."